Governance Change Working Group. Ben said the WG had met earlier in the week, and had discussed the following topics:

Change officer terms for the Forum and SCWG to run from Nov. 1 until Oct. 31 (two years). Kirk added that nominations for the Chair of the Forum and the SCWG will be open on August 9. Kirk noted that the current officer terms end on Oct. 21, and originally he thought it would be fine to have no officers for a 10 day period, Oct. 22-31, but that someone on the call pointed out we might need a Chair to accept Exclusion Notices following IPR review during that period, etc., so the recommendation was to hold a Forum ballot to extend the current officer terms by 10 days, through Oct. 31. Dimitris asked if we also needed an SCWG ballot extending the current officer terms as well, and Kirk said he’d check the wording of Ballot 206.

Check to see what amendment is needed for ETSI audit nomenclature in the Forum’s Bylaws based on Dimitris’ email of Feb. 6, 2018. A correction ballot will come soon.

Revisit status of transition under new Bylaws, and ongoing need for Governance Change Working Group meetings through Oct. 3. The WG will continue to meet to complete transition issues.

Discuss definition/meaning of “Member” and “Membership” – the Forum and SCWG should each ask Members, Associate Members, and Interested Parties to list their representatives, and to keep the list up to date.

Discuss who must sign the IPR Policy Agreement if a listed representative is not an employee of the Member, Associate Member, or Interested Party.

Clarify when Forum Bylaws apply to Chartered Working Groups (e.g., rules on election of officers, etc.). The Bylaws will be amended to clarify.

Ballot Status – Dimitris brought up Jos’ draft Ballot 227 to establish a Forum Infrastructure Working Group. Jos explained the ballot was to remedy the current ad hoc nature of Forum infrastructure projects (maintaining email lists and the wiki, etc.), and said a new Working Group could help the Forum address additional needs now that the SCWG and other new Working Groups were coming online. Kirk asked if this infrastructure group could instead be a Subcommittee of the Forum so it would clearly be under the Forum’s direction, but Jos said Subcommittees were not allowed at the Forum level under the new Bylaws to avoid IP issues. However, he added that this new WG couldn’t impose any infrastructure decisions on anyone, but would just make suggestions to the Forum as a whole. Significant changes would require a Ballot of the Forum. Kirk asked that that be made clear in the Charter.

Dimitris raised the question of who could be a member of this new WG, and whether they would also have to be a member of another WG, not just this one. Jos agreed that was a good requirement. Dimitris said that there would be no IP problems if this was to become a Subcommittee at the Forum level because members participating in this Subcommittee would have signed the IPR Agreement already by participating in at least another WG. Tim said the WG wouldn’t be working on issues involving IP anyway.
Rich suggested this new WG should also come up with guidelines and information for members on how to do things like add or remove emails from lists and wiki access for Member representatives. Marcelo asked if it was really necessary to create a WG for infrastructure issues, or could the Forum just do it on its own. Jos said the current process is just informal maintenance by a few Members, but with recent changes we need a more structured approach. Kirk asked Jos to continue working on his ballot and take all the comments into account in a new draft.